Covering Law & Justice.

Second Marriage No Excuse to Shirk Maintenance, Allahabad HC Tells UP Police Sub-Inspector

Allahabad, India – The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a Sub-Inspector in the U.P. Police, affirming that the responsibility to maintain his first wife is not diminished by his second marriage, even if it was consensual. The court, while upholding the maintenance award, also issued a significant directive to all family courts in the state regarding mandatory procedural requirements in maintenance cases.

The bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan Pal Singh upheld the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballia, which had directed the petitioner, Shailesh Kumar Yadav, to pay Rs. 18,000 per month in maintenance to his wife, Smt. Meena Devi, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Case Background

The case originated from a maintenance application filed by Smt. Meena Devi. The Family Court in Ballia, after considering the evidence, awarded her Rs. 18,000 per month, effective from the date she filed the application. The husband, Shailesh Kumar Yadav, challenged this order in the High Court, seeking its reversal.

Arguments from Both Sides

The counsel for the husband argued that the maintenance amount was "excessive and exorbitant." The primary contention was that the petitioner had entered into a second marriage with the consent of his first wife, Smt. Meena Devi, and now had the additional liability of supporting his second wife and three children from that marriage.

Conversely, the counsel for the wife vehemently opposed this plea. It was submitted that the husband is a Sub-Inspector in the U.P. Police with a substantial income. The husband himself had admitted to a monthly salary of Rs. 65,000 in his affidavit before the trial court, though his current income is reportedly much higher, around Rs. 1,20,000 per month. The wife's counsel argued that given the current cost of living, the awarded amount of Rs. 18,000 was reasonable and by no means excessive.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Precedents

Justice Singh, in his judgment, systematically dismantled the husband's arguments. The court noted that the petitioner is an "able-bodied person" and "cannot shirk his legal obligation to maintain his wife."

Citing landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) , the court reiterated the established principle that a wife is entitled to maintenance amounting to up to 25% of the husband’s net income. The court calculated that 25% of the husband's admitted income of Rs. 65,000 (at the time of the trial court's order) would be Rs. 16,250.

> "...calculated on the basis of Rs. 65,000/- as considered by the Trial Court, 25% comes to Rs. 16,250/- per month, which substantially aligns with the maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court."

The court further observed that the awarded maintenance of Rs. 18,000 per month "cannot be said to be excessive; in fact, it is on the lower side."

Directive on Procedural Lapses

In a significant addendum, the High Court pointed out a critical procedural flaw in the trial court's order. The judgment noted that the Family Court had decided the maintenance application without framing any "points for determination," a mandatory requirement under Section 354(6) of the Cr.P.C.

> "It is clarified that in the absence of framing any points for determination, it is difficult to ascertain the basis on which the Trial Court passed the order or awarded the maintenance amount."

To rectify this common procedural error, the court directed that a copy of its order be circulated to all District Judges and Principal Judges of Family Courts for "communication and necessary compliance."

Final Verdict

The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Family Court's decision and summarily dismissed the criminal revision petition. The order not only reinforces a husband's non-negotiable duty to maintain his wife, irrespective of subsequent marriages, but also serves as a crucial reminder to the lower judiciary to adhere to procedural mandates for ensuring transparent and reasoned judgments.